ARlSTOTLE'S POET/es AND STOleLlTERARY THEORY

The extent and areas of influence of Aristotle's Poetics onHellenistic literary theory have not been systematically investi­gated yet. This kind of study is indeed especially difficult becausethe evidence is scattered in many different and disparate sourcesand thus it cannot be easily evaluated. Nevertheless, thanks toexcellent older and more recent work and the progress in the studyof the papyri of Herculaneum and Philodemus' treatises, Stoicviews on poetry have been sufficiently illuminated and sys­tematized1) so as to allow a cautious comparison between the

1) The basic study of Stoic poetics is still P. H. De Lacy, Stoic Views ofPoetry, AJP 69 (1948) 241-271. See also A.M. Ioppolo, Aristone di Chio e 10stoicismo antico (Napies 1980) 256-278, E. Asmis, The Poetic Theory of the Stoic'Aristo', Apeiron 23 (1990) 147-201, N. Greenberg, The Poetic Theory ofPhilodemus (London 1990) 57-79 and cf. M. Isnardi Parente, Una poetica di

17 Rhein. Mus. f. Philol. 140/3-4

258 Poulheria Kyriakou

Aristotelian and the Stoic poetic theories. Of the two majorphilosophical schools on whose literary theories some substantialevidence has survived I have chosen the Stoics over the Epicureansbecause the Stoic system was much more hospitable to poetry andthe Stoics often tapped poets for authoritative arguments and ex­amples to back their theories. As a result of this continuous fas­cination with poetry the Stoics developed more diversified literarytheories than the Epicureans who held a relatively uniform nega­tive view of poetry2). Thus it would seem apriori more likely tofind areas of contact and continuity between the Aristotelian andthe Stoic theories. I will argue that this plausible hypothesis cannotbe substantiated by the extant evidence.

Although not absolutely without precedent, Aristotle's ap­proach to poetry and criticism was, by modern lights at least,sufficiently novel. Especially his conscious effort to build a the­oretical infrastructure upon which all subsequent literary criticismcould securely rest was unique in ancient times. One would thenexpect that his approach would have awakened the interest ofcontemporaries and younger contemporaries and that Aristotle'slegacy would have been particularly strong soon after his death.Such an attitude would have befitted the intellectual climate of theday very weIl since the Hellenistic age showed a keen interest inliterary theory: poetry and its criticism were abundantly debatedand formed part of diverse theoretical investigations as is attestede.g. by Philodemus' On Poems. Besides, there is evidence thatother areas of Aristotle's philosophy, like physics, exerted someinfluence on later thinkers3) and there is no cogent reason why the

incerto Autore in Filodemo, in: Filologia e Forme Letterarie. Studi offerti a F. dellaCorte, V (Urbino 1987) 81-96. Much earlier c.Jensen, Philodemos, Über dieGedichte, Fünftes Buch (Berlin 1923), had broken new ground with his monu­mental edition of Philodemus' De Poem. 5 (see especially 128-145 [on Aristo] and146-174 [on Crates]).

2) For Epicurus' views on poetry and liberal education see A. Ronconi,Appunti di estetica epicurea, in: Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di A.Rostagni (Turin 1963) 8 ff., A. Angeli, Filodemo, Agli Amici di Scuola (PHerc.1005) (NapIes 1988) 61-70, D. Clay, Lucretius and Epicurus (Ithaca 1983) 16 n.12and 78 n. 58 and E. Asmis, Philodemus' Poetic Theory and The Good King Ac­cording to Homer, CA 10 (1991) 1--45. For Epicurus' followers see e.g. O. Regen­bogen, Lukrez. Seine Gestalt in seinem Gedicht (Leipzig 1932) 81, F. Giancotti,Postille sui rapporti fra Epicureismo e poesia in Epicuro e in Lucrezio, GIF 3(1972) 195ff., Angeli 82-102 and E.Asmis, Epicurean Poetics, BACAP 7 (1993)63-93.

3) See for instance the discussion of D.J. FurIey, Two Studies in the GreekAtomists (Princeton 1967) and D. E. Hahm, The Origins of Stoic Cosmology

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 259

Poetics would not have met with similar reception. Bur the impactof the treatise seems to have been much more limited or at the veryleast diffuse: no commentary on it was ever written and no allu­sions to or quotations from it appear in extant literature. Althoughit is probable that the treatise was known, it apparently nevergained wide popularity4).

On the other hand, there has survived no complete treatise oreven detailed account of Hellenistic poetic theories, comparable toAristotle's Poetics. Although not free from interpretive problemsthe Poetics at least presents concisely its author's theory of poetry.The chief surviving sources for Hellenistic literary theory are theworks of Philodemus, especially his On Poems, of which only asubstantial part of the end of book five has escaped severe damage.Not only does Philodemus' work survive in fragmentary state butalso the author has a clear polemical orientation which results in avery synoptical presentation of the opinions refuted, often withlittle or no mention of individual names or even indication ofphilosophical schools. To make matters worse, it is not inconceiv­able that Philodemus or his sources intentionally distorted or mis­quoted, or perhaps in certain cases plainly misunderstood, theopinions refuted. At any rate, brief reference seldom does fulljustice to the text addressed. Nevertheless, even granting the con­siderable lack of reliable and, above all, adequate information, it isimpossible not to notice a rift between Aristotle and the Hellenis­tic literary critics consistently suggested by the meager evidence.Hardly does any post-Aristotelian source seem to approach po­etics the way Aristotle does. Concerning the definition, for in­stance, one searches vainly for anything even remotely analogousto the Aristotelian definition of tragedy. Only brief, descriptiveand intuitive-sounding accounts of what a poem is appear occa­sionally. Needless to say, the importance Aristotle ascribes to 1-l'D-

(Columbus 1977). More recently F.H. Sandbach, Aristotle and the Stoics (Cam­bridge 1985), challenged the assumption of Aristotle's influence on the Stoa, argu­ing that the evidence on which previous claims have been based is inconclusive. See,though, the discussion of the limitations of this argument by D. E. Hahm, Aristotleand the Stoics: A Methodological Crux, AGPh 73 (1991) 297-311 (I owe the lasttwo references to Prof. Hahm himself).

4) See D. W. Lucas, Aristotle. Poetics (Oxford 1968) xxii-xxiii; see alsobelow n. 9. Only in the Renaissance did the Poetics start enjoying its present pres­tige; see e.g. B. Weinberg, AHistory of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renais­sance, vol. I (Chicago 1961) 349-423, J. Hutton, Aristotle's Poetics (New York1982) 24-34 and S. Halliwell, The Poetics and Its Interpreters, in: A. O. Rorty (ed.),Essays on Aristotle's Poetics (Princeton 1992) 409-24.

260 Poulheria Kyriakou

Soc; and the theoretical infrastructure he postulates as the basis ofthe successful poem are nowhere to be found in Hellenistic literarycriticism. On the contrary, moralldidactic considerations hold anespecially prominent place.

Such considerations were astapie of Greek literary criticismas far back as one can go, to Xenophanes and Theagenes ofRhegium5). In Aristophanes' Frogs Aeschylus and Euripides dis­cuss the social role of poets and both agree that poets are admiredbecause of their "skill and advice, for making people in the citiesbetter" (1009-1010)6). The first part of the play's agon is devotedto the benefits the Athenian citizens purportedly reaped from theplays of the two contenders: Aeschylus' plays taught them mili­tary valor and discipline, Euripides' characters offered models ofsmart argumentative power. Plato often (and ironically) mentionsthe use of poetry for didactic and paraenetic purposes. He ridiculesof course the idea that poets can actually teach people and especial­ly instruct professionals in their arts and crafts but he bringssignificant testimony to the fact that people did view poetry interms of instruction or, at the very least, used such claims in theirrhetoric. Plato hirnself takes much more seriously the possibilityof using poetry to instill positive values to the young. Above all, heconsiders poetry a threat which contributes to the moral unravel­ing of the body politic7). Thus not everything was new in Hel­lenistic literary criticism as hardly everything was new in Aristot­le's Poetics.

Nevertheless, it would be amistake to consider Hellenisticliterary criticism as basically areturn to pre-Aristotelian poeticssince several elements were particular to the schools which pro­posed them. My thesis is that, based on the fragmentary and oftenobscure extant evidence, there does not appear to be a clearlydistinguishable thread that runs from Aristotle's Poetics to Hel­lenistic literary theory in general and the Stoic in particular. The

5) On the beginnings of Greek literary criticism see the surveys in R. Pfeif­fer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) 8 H., D. A. RusselI, Criticism inAntiquity (London 1981) 18 ff. and N.]. Richardson, Aristotle's Reading of Hom­er and Its Background, in: R. Lamberton and J.]. Keaney (eds.), Homer's AncientReaders (Princeton 1992) 30--40.

6) On the issue of moral didacticism in Greek drama as presented in theFrogs see recently the discussion of K.]. Dover, Aristophanes. The Frogs (Oxford1993) 15-16.

7) For Plato's views on poetry and education see P. Vicaire, Platon: Critiquelitteraire (Paris 1960) and S. Scolnikov, Plato's Metaphysics of Education (London1988) 112-119.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 261

import of this claim can be better assessed if one considers therelationshiy of Aristotle's Poetics to Plato's work: although nomention 0 Plato is made and no quotation from his dialogues isfound in the Poetics, similarities of content, methodology and evenmetaphors (e.g. the poem as a living being) have been catalogued8).

It is very hard to find such similarities between the Poetics andHellenistic literary criticism. This lack of correspondence does notof course imply that the Poetics was not known to Hellenistictheorists or that they did not consider it an important work - thereis some indirect evidence that they must have known the treatise9),

although it is naturally impossible to know how they ranked it. Iwill argue in what follows that, based on our limited evidence, onecan only claim that there does not seem to be a 'direct' influence, inthe sense of similar concerns or answers to specific problems, ofAristotle's Poetics on Hellenistic literary theory. It is perfectlypossible that Hellenistic theorists read the Poetics, decided thatAristotle's approach was not satisfactory and went on to proposesomething totally different - this would definitely be a sort ofinfluence. Unfortunately there is no evidence for this tantalizingpossibility: one fails to find substantial influence of Aristotle onlater theorists and there has survived no information that theyreacted to the Poetics by rejecting, approving or modifying Aris­totle's theses. Thus we can only speculate about such possiblereaction since we cannot disprove it. In what follows all claimsabout the absence of Aristotelian influence on later literary criti­cism should be read with this caveat in mind.

Despite the absence of substantial direct connections betweenthe Poetics and Hellenistic literary criticism, one finds many anassertion to the contrary in the literature, often back to back withremarks on the isolation of the Poetics IO ). One cannot help think­ing that Aristotle and Plato 100m so large in modern perception ofancient literary criticism that it proves difficult for anyone to re­concile oneself with the idea that they might not have been soinfluential in their time after all. The scanty and widely scatteredancient evidence as weIl as the paucity of modern studies, especial-

8) See S. Halliwell, Aristotle's Poetics (Chapel Hill 1986) 331-36.9) Diogenes Laertius mentions the Poetics in his list of Aristotelian writings

(5.22-27) and his ultimate source is believed to go back to the Ptolemaic library; see1. Düring, Aristoteies (Heidelberg 1966) 36-37 and R. Blum, Kallimachos und dieLiteraturverzeichnung bei den Griechen (Darmstadt 1977) 121-32.

10) See for instance S. Koster, Antike Epostheorien (Wiesbaden 1970) 85 n. 1and Halliwell (above, n. 8) 288 n.4.

262 Poulheria Kyriakou

ly comparative ones, devoted to the subject have certainly contrib­uted to the perpetuation or rather the taking for granted of alargely unsubstantiated assumption. This is not to imply of coursethat nobody has noticed the uniqueness and isolation of the Po­etics ll ) but to call attention to the fact that even in specializedstudies Aristotelian influence is often taken for granted. I willprovide two recent examples of such discussions before concen­trating on the relationship of the Poetics to the literary theories ofthe 5toic school.

In his article on literary criticism in the Iliadic scholiaRichardson 12) makes repeated references to Aristotelian materialin the scholia and even to the "fact" that practically all literarytheoretic principles found there can be traced back to Aristotle, asif such influence were self-evidentt3). Again this claim can hardlybe totally wrong since some things manifestly seem to go back toAristotle. Nevertheless, there are no grounds for claiming that themajority of the scholiasts' literary-theoretic principles are indebtedto hirn. Richardson divides his article into sections with tellinglyAristotelian captions (fA.ii80<;, ~8o<;, Ml;L<; etc.) but the similaritywith Aristotle does not extend much beyond the terminology.Richardson asserts, for instance, the Aristotelian origin of 1tOLXLALU

(a principle often evoked in the scholia), i.e. the inclusion of var­iegated episodes or the alternation of charged and relaxed passagesin order to avoid monotony. Now the term itself occurs only oncein the Poetics (1459a34) in a negative context as something undesir­able or at any rate problematic I4 ). Of course the term is not ofcardinal importance if there are indications that the concept ispresent. Although Aristotle mentions admiringly Homer's use ofepisodes (Poet. 1459a30-b24; cf. 1451a16-35), his praise focusesnot on avoidance of monotony or anything of this sort but on the

11) See Düring (above, n. 9) 182 and Russell (above, n.5) 31.12) N.]. Richardson, Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the

Iliad: A Sketch, CQ 30 (1980) 265-87.13) Similar assumptions underlie the much earlier work of L. Adam, Die

aristotelische Theorie vom Epos und ihre Entwicklung bei Griechen und Römern(Wiesbaden 1889). See the discussion of M. Schmidt, Die Erklärungen zum Welt­bild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Bias (Munich1976) 39-74, esp. 39-54, who argues against the emphasis on both Aristotelian andStoic influence on the scholia. According to hirn many views found in the scholiaseem to have been commonplace in the Hellenistic period and thus their appearancewould not imply any direct indebtedness. On the literary-theoretic views in thescholia see also the discussion of N. G. Wilson, Scoliasti e commentatori, SCO 33(1983) 83-112.

14) Cf. M. Heath, Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford 1989) 50 n. 30.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 263

proper construction of a successful poetic !!ÜeO~ which nowhereindudes variety for its own sake. Similarly, in his fairly recentstudy Meijeringl5) detects consistent influence of Aristotelianideas on the literary and rhetorical theories in the scholia. Morespecifically, Meijering sets out to prove that the cardinal conceptsof 1jJuxaywyLa, <pavwuLa, iJrt6eEaL~ and ObWVO!!La go back to Aris­totle. This is not a place to engage in a detailed refutation of thisargument but so much at least should be said. Meijering remarks atthe condusion of his book that Aristotle or other Peripatetics arenot cited in questions of literary theory and characteristically Aris­totelian terms like !!L!!T]GL~ or fear and pity do not appear in thescholia16); nevertheless, he condudes that "it was possible for latercommentators, who certainly never read the Poetics, to remainrelatively dose to the principles underlying it. In the commentariesof their predecessors, which I believe did arise via the Alexandriansfrom Peripatetic scholarship, they could recognize concepts famil­iar to them from their rhetorical schooling"17). I find this reason­ing difficult to folIowand at any rate less than cogent. Meijeringassumes that "Peripatetic scholarship" stayed dose to Aristotleand promulgated his ideas and terminology thus influencing allsubsequent scholarship. But "Peripatetic scholarship" is a ghost, aconvenient designation to cover all post-Aristotelian scholarshipproduced by authors of often little-known philosophical affili­ation. üften one cannot even attribute a name to views or writingssaid or seeming to be of Peripatetic origin18). Thus Meijering's

15) R. Meijering, Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia(Groningen 1987).

16) Meijering (aboye, n. 15) 223-224.17) Meijering (aboye, n. 15) 225.18) Cf. the comments of C. O. Brink, Callimachus and Aristotle: An In­

quiry into Callimachus' TIQo<; TIQuSupavTjv, CQ 40 (1946) 11-12: "In this contexta fact of nomenclature may be mentioned. The name TIEQLltU'tTjux6<; which by themiddle of the third century B.C. denoted a member of the Peripatetic School inAthens, changed its significance about that time. With the wider influence ofPeripatetic studies it is not only used for the Athenian school but can also denoteany writer of biography or literary history connected with Alexandria ... rwoconditions constitute this new usage of an older name, yiz. connexion with Alexan­dria ... and the refined form which Alexandria had bestowed on the literary andbiographical studies of the Peripatos". See also his further specification (12 n.1):"There seems to haye been a third stage in which the name lost its connexion eyenwith Alexandria, and did not mean more than 'grammarian' or 'literary critic"'.Along the same lines Pfeiffer (aboye, n. 5) 150-151 noted: "That Hermippus couldbe called TIEQLltU'tTjux6<; as weil as KUAAL!!aXELO<; suggests that the term had nolonger any philosophical flayour but could be used of any writer on literature andantiquities, in particular the biographer" .

264 Poulheria Kyriakou

unqualified references to Peripatetic scholarship are very optim­istic, if not unfounded.

Turning now to the Stoic literary theory and starting with thedefinition, it appears that the Stoics fairly consistently defined thepoem as a piece of significant rhythmical diction. Besides,Posidonius distinguished between poem as "diction that is metricalor rhythmical with elaboration ... going beyond prose" and poet­ry as "significant poetic dietion containing an imitation of thingsdivine and human" (D.L. 7.60 = fr. 44 Edelstein-Kidd)19). It is notknown whether all Stoics shared this distinction but it is reason­able that some at least did. The duality basic to most Stoic literarycriticism is clearly apparent in this definition: poems were consid­ered under two aspects, as a structure of harmonious sounds andwords and as a carrier of meaning, or as A.E~L~ and t..oyo~ respective­ly, i.e. articulated speech and articulated speech with meaning.Stoic linguistic theory distinguished among the EX'tO~ UJtOXELI!EVOV,

the O'I']l!ulvov and the 0'I']I!aLVOI!EVOV20). The most elementary indi­visible component of words was the qJülVi] or articulated voice21 ).Consequently literary criticism started with the study andcategorization of qJülVi].

In Posidonius' definition the difference from Aristotle's Po­etics is instantly obvious from the focus on the rhythmical, linguis­tic and metrical aspects of poetry. 'Imitation' of course rings closerto Aristotle but the notion is also prominent in Plato and it wasdefinitely part of pre-Socratic theoretical discussions, especially ofvisual arts22). The general character of Posidonius' formulation inits extant form is foreign to Aristotle's analysis and his concern todelineate precisely the appropriate kind of I!(I!Y](H~ that pertains totragic poetry per se. But the most crucial discrepancy between

19) On Posidonius' definition see De Lacy (above, n. 1) 244, M. GiganteLT]!-lUVUXov 1tOLT]!-lU: Contributo alla storia deli' estetica antica pp 16 (1961) 45 H.,Greenberg (above, n.1) and R. Häußler IIoLT]!-lu und IIoLTjot<;, in: FestschriftK. Büchner (Wiesbaden 1970) 125 ff.

20) SVF 11 166; see A. C. Lloyd, Grammar and Metaphysics in the Stoa, in:A. A. Long (ed.), Problems in Stoicism (London 1971) 58. Cf. also M. Pohlenz, DieBegründung der abendländischen Sprachlehre durch die Stoa, NGG 22 (1939)151-198 and G. M. Rispoli, Eufonia e poetica in testi ercolanesi, in: G. Bolognesi &V. Pisani (eds.), Linguistica e Filologia (Brescia 1987) 462-463.

21) D.L. 7.55-59 = SVF III 212-214. On cpwvf) see K.Barwick, RemmiusPalaemon und die römische Ars Grammatica (Leipzig 1922) 91-94 and W.Ax,Laut, Stimme und Sprache (Göttingen 1986) 151 ff.

22) See Russell (above, n. 5) 99ff.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 265

Aristotle and the Stoics remains the emphasis on rhythm. Themost dedicated adherents of a radical theory of euphony, whichadvocated the autocracy of the sense of hearing as the only facultyresponsible for the judgment of poetry, were the so-calledXQL'tLXO(23). According to them not only content was consideredextraneous to poetry but also style (MSLi;) and its virtues (Philod.Tr. C 17.4ff. Sb.). The poetic art consisted solely in composition(mJV8WLi;), the harmonious combination of elementary sounds,and in rhythmical elaboration. At least one Stoic, possibly Aristoof Chios, shared this view and Philodemus explicitly says that hetook it over from the xQmxo( (De Poem. 5.18.7-17). The identifi­cation of Philodemus' opponent with the flamboyant third cen­tury Stoic from Chios is far from certain. Jensen was the first tosuggest Arist024) and many subsequent scholars accepted his argu­ment25). Recently, though, Isnardi Parente challenged Jensen'sview arguing that Philodemus' report is incompatible with the restof the available information on Aristo and indeed with the doc­trines of the older Stoa26). According to her Philodemus' opponentmust have been a grammarian or philosopher associated with themiddle Stoa27).

Whoever Philodemus' opponent might have been, the mainpoints of his poetic theory can be summarized as follows: (1) arequirement for good diction plus a morally blameless thought, (2)classification of poems into good, bad and intermediate, and (3)emphasis on euphony and the fact that poems are judged by hear­ing. Asmis28) suggests that the division into thought and composi­tion, in her opinion mainly a Hellenistic innovation, had impor­tant consequences for the history of literary criticism: it supposed-

23) On the XQL"tLXOL see Jensen (above, n.l) 146 ff., H. Gomoll, Hera­kleodoros und die XQL"tLXOL bei Philodem, Philologus 91 (1937) 373-84 and D. M.Schenkeveld, Q[ XQL"tLXOL in Philodemus, Mnemosyne 21 (1968) 185 ff.

24) The identification was based upon Jensen's restoration of the damagedpapyrus text of Phiiod. De Poem. 5.16.28-30.

25) M. Pohlenz, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes, NGG16 (1933) 77, De Lacy (above, n.l) 252-253, G.M.A. Grube, The Greek andRoman Critics (London 1965) 136, Schenkeveld (above, n. 23) 177 and 180 (withcaution) and Ioppolo (above, n. 1) 256-278.

26) M. Isnardi Parente (above, n. 1) and the same author's, Gli Stoici antichi(Turin 1989) 32 H.

27) In his review of Jensen's book R. Philippson had much earlier rejectedJensen's proposal (PhW 44 [1924] 417-21). Asmis (above, n.l) and C.Mangoni,Filodemo. 11 quinto libro della Poetica (Napies 1993) 61-69, find Isnardi Parente'sthesis plausible, although with some qualifications.

28) Asmis (above, n.l) 155-157.

266 Poulheria Kyriakou

ly promoted a strict demarcation of features intrinsic and extrinsicto poetry, like diction and music and dance respectively. Thisdistinction militated against the Aristotelian position that pro­nounced tragedy the queen of all other genres because it includedmusic and dance. It is, to say the least, bizarre to attribute toAristotle an emphasis on the importance of musical embellish­ments as the basis for tragedy's superiority. He naturally considersthem pleasurable but stresses their irrelevance to the ~'Ü8oc; andtheir ultimate expendibility. It is definitely hard to think of a morerigorous distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic elements inpoetry than Aristotle's in the Poetics. But the most importantadvantage of this Stoic's theory according to Asmis is the attribu­tion of all thoughts included in the poem not to the characters butto the poets themselves. Thus there ensues the possibility for acritical upgrading of genres like lyric which were considered in­ferior by Aristotle. I fail to find any indication either that Aristotleconsidered the thoughts to belong exclusively to the characters orthat the Stoic did not consider thoughts as reflections of a charac­ter's situation and thus not necessarily indicative of the poet's ownconcerns. Neither Aristotle nor any other ancient critic for thatmatter dealt with poetic subjectivity and its expression in apoern.Asmis claims that

whereas Aristotle was inclined to regard a poem as an arrefact existingindependently of its creator, a poem is now seen as a creation arisingfrom the mind of a poet (my italics)29).

But for Aristotle all production has its source in the mind of theartisan (Phys. 192b9 ff., Met. 1025b22-23, 1032a32-b2, 1034a24,1070a7, GC 735a2-3, HA 588a29, EN 1140al0-14) and there is noreason to assurne that poetic production is different in that respect.As far as can be determined from Philodemus' text, the Stoic'stheory seems largely unrelated to Aristotle's Poetics and certainlydoes not improve upon it in any way.

A more interesting case is Crates of Mallos who wrote com­mentaries on archaic epic and drama and made considerable con­tributions to several branches of linguistics like phonetics, mor­phology and etymology. Although not a Stoic in the strict sense ofthe term, Crates was clearly influenced by Stoic theories - ironical­ly, Philodemus' surviving work deals with thinkers affiliated withthe Stoic school but not orthodox Stoics. Thus the task of deter­mining the position of the adherents of the school and its various

29) Asmis (above, n.l) 156.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 267

satellites at different periods becomes particuIarly arduous. Sudacalls Crates a Stoic philosopher but this must be an inference basedon rather shallow knowiedge of the philosophical affiliations ofdifferent thinkers 30). Crates was a xQL'tLx6s; who thought very high­Iy of his vocation: according to hirn a xQL'tLx6S; is the only one ableto play the role of literary critic, although he may lack the techni­cal expertise of a grammarian31 ). With a well-developed literarytheory Crates seems at first view to have affinities with Aristotle'stheory of poetry but it soon becomes clear that these affinities arenot as important as they might initially appear.

Philodemus devotes a large part of his discussion of Crates'views to the latter's Auseinandersetzung with the 'philosophers', agroup of thinkers not further specified but who could, accordingto Philodemus erroneously, include the Epicureans32). Philodemusdenies that his own school shares the views of the 'philosophers'who considered the 8f~a·ta the sole criterion for the judgment ofpoetry. These were conventional, arbitrary agreed upon normsthat regulated the literary perception of poetry and provided an­swers to such questions as who the best author to imitate in everygenre was33). On this thesis there is no natural good in a poem that

30) Tl Mette. The fact that Panaetius was Crates' student (T 3 Mette)possibly facilitated his acquisition of the title of philosopher. On Crates'philosophical affiliations see C. Wachsmuth, De Cratete Mallota (Leipzig 1860)5-6, Jensen (above, n. 1) 149 ff., H. Mette, Parateresis (Halle 1952) 61 and E. Asmis,Crates on Poetic Criticism, Phoenix 46 (1992) 160-161. J. L Porter, Philodemus onMaterial Difference, CronErc 19 (1989) 157-158, 168-170 and id., HermeneuticLines and Circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the Exegesis of Homer, in: Lamber­ton & Keaney (above, n.5) 85 ff., denies Stoic influence on Crates.

31) According to Sextus (Adv. Math. 1.79 = fr. 17 Mette) Crates believedthat "the critic differs from the grammarian; and he says that the critic must haveknowledge of the whole range of language whereas the grammarian simply explainsdifficult words, prosody and the like. Thus the critic resembles a master-craftsmanand the grammarian a subordinate craftsman". The issue could not simply besettled by an assertion on Crates' part. Some grammarians for one espoused a muchbroader view of their discipline ("the grammarian must deal with all aspects oflanguage", Sch. on Dion. Thrax 7.27-28 Hilgard) and Crates hirnself was called agrammarian by later sources. At any rate it is interesting to observe that Cratespresupposes a gradation of arts and science that goes back to Aristotle (Phys.194a36-b7).

32) Different suggestions on the identity of the 'philosophers' have been putforth. Philippson (above, n. 27) favored the Sceptics while Greenberg (above, n. 1)209 n. 49 and Porter (1989) (above, n. 30) 162-163 thought that the term must referto a group of critics with whom Crates disagreed according to Philodemus (DePoem.5.27.7ff.).

33) Cf. for instance Philodemus' remarks on the confusion that results frompostulating different 8EflU'tU, since it is impossible for everybody to agree on the

268 Poulheria Kyriakou

can be detected by everyone and at all times. Crates attacked thephilosophers claiming that there are no 8EI-lU'W and that hearingcan function as the judge of objective goodness irrespective of anyposited and subjective criteria. Rejecting the multiplicity of stand­ards espoused by the radical euphonists Crates pronounced theirclaim to subjectivity in the judgment of poetry unfounded becausethere was a natural good in poems distinguishable by everybody'sear. Philodemus agrees with the philosophers that there is nonatural good inherent in a poem qua poem. On the other hand, heagrees with Crates that there are no 8EI-lUta. In Rhet. 4.7.6-14(Sudhaus 1.151) he claims that postulating 8EI-laLU would be jus­tified if there existed no naturally beautiful speech but, since this isclearly not the case, it is ridiculous to abandon nature and haverecourse to convention. Nevertheless, he attacks as naive Crates'position that the sense of hearing, which according to the Epicu­reans is liA.0Yo;, like all senses, can judge the sound of poetry oranything else for that matter.

As befitted a XQLLLX6;, Crates considered elementary sounds(cpwvuL) and thus hearing, the most important factor in the judg­ment of poetry. He differed, though, from the rest of the xQLtLxo(inasmuch as he did not believe that the sense of hearing was re­sponsible for judging the thought: the XQLtLXO( proclaimed that apoem's euphony, perceived and judged by hearing, eo ipso madeits thought praiseworthy irrespective of content, truth value ormoral import. Crates suggested that a poem is judged empiricallyby the hearing which examines the sound in relation to the mean­ing or, as Philodemus puts it, "not without the thoughts but notthe thoughts themselves" (De Poem. 5.28.26-28). For Crates thecontent of a poem fell under the jurisdiction of reason. While he

best style or model: "Because indeed not all peorle trust 8EI!U'tU nor all respect thesame [8EI!U] ... but others emulate the style 0 Isocrates, others that of Thucyd­ides" (Rhet. 4.7.14-22 [Sudhaus 1.151]). A little below Philodemus returns to thesame issue: "But it is not even possible to say that the orators themselves as a grouphave made up their minds on one kind of style and practice it consistently. On thecontrary, we will observe among them, or the majority of them, different tastes ...In respect to Isocrates either absolutely nobody or only rwo or three have the sameattitude and some say that not even the style of Isocrates hirnself is uniform in allhis works" (Rhet. 4.8.9-22 [Sudhaus 1.152-153]). Although Philodemus deals herewith rhetoric and its inferiority in comparison to philosophy, his conclusions arecertainly applicable to other arts as weil. See G. Milanese, Lucida Carmina (Milano1989) 86-93, who suggests that according to the Epicureans the concept of 'tEXVT]cannot accomodate the multiplicity of standards implicit in the 8EI!a'tU theory. Inhis subject matter, methods and even style the Epicurean philosopher avoids varia­tion; cf. also Grube (above, n. 25) 202.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 269

did not consider a successful poem simply an agglomerate of har­monious sounds like a musical piece, he thought that goodness orbadness of thought is irrelevant to the judgment of apoern. AI­though his position seems somewhat artificial and hard to grasp,he apparently sought to strike amiddIe path between the radicalone-sidedness of euphonists and those theorists who postulatedthought as the most crucial criterion in the judgment of poems: hedisagreed not only with the euphonists but also with the Epicu­reans who claimed that the hearing cannot judge anything becausethe sound cannot convey anything to the intellect: content andform should both be good and the poem should be judged as awhole by the intellect. Crates gave precedence to euphony butkept sound and thought, the criteria for their judgment and thefaculties that judge them scrupulously apart. Crates' position isprobably as close as a xQLnx6~ could ever approach the Stoic out­look on poetry. It is known that the Stoics like the Epicureansrequired both good sound and good thought to proclaim a poemworthwhile and believed that hearing judges the former and themind the latter. Crates obviously espoused only the second claimof the Stoic theory.

As far as Aristotle is concerned, Crates seems to come closestto the tradition of the Poetics with his claim that poems are judgedon account of whether they were composed according to the prin­ciple (A6yo~) of the art (De Poem. 5.28.2-3). Philodemus com­plains about Crates' failure to define this principle. It seems,though, that the principle of the art, which exists by nature, deter­mines the art of poetry and is judged by perception (De Poem.5.28.24-26), can only be the principle of sound according to whicha poem is judged34). Thus for Crates a euphonious poem is a well­composed poem that satisfies the requirements of nature and art.Auditory pleasure is not laudable per se but as an indication of thepoem's compliance with the principle of the art. This principleregulates not only the production but also the response to a workof art, in this case not only the composition of a euphoniouspoem35) but also the pleasure that ensues from the realization,through the sense of hearing, that the poem complies with the

34) Cf. the discussion of Mangoni (above, n.27) 297-298.35) The persistent importance of theorems of art that regulated good com­

position, i.e. the arrangement of words, sentences and paragraphs, is attested byDionysius (De Comp. Verb. 5.12); see A. Scaglione, The Classical Theory of Com­position from Its Origins to the Present (Chapel Hili 1972) 74ff. and K. Freuden­burg, The Walking Muse (Princeton 1993) 132-139.

270 Poulheria Kyriakou

principle of the art36). Inasmuch as Crates emphasizes the principleof the art as the ultimate criterion of artistic value there can bedetected an ultimate debt to Aristotle but the essence of Crates'claim turns out to be significantly different from any of Aristotle'spronouncements in the Poetics: Crates' principle of poetics, incontrast to the Aristotelian l!'Üeo~, is euphony and the art consistsin creating beautiful sound-patterns, an aim which Aristotle obvi­ously could not have condoned as the defining characteristic ofpoetics.

In another part of his treatise Philodemus talks about a theor­ist whose name has been lost and who proposed the fairly radical(at least by ancient standards) theory that all poets, and conse­quently all poetic genres, dealt with the production of good soundor beautiful diction (PHerc 460, 26, Tr. B, fr. 17.8-27 Sb.).

He says it will make no differenee, not even if we eompare Arehi­loehus or Euripides or someone else with Homer, if only we juxtaposethe praised dietion of eaeh. For just beeause tragedy, iambie, and Iyriediffer from epie we will not refrain from eomparing poets of differentgenres, sinee the goal (tEAO~) is the same for eaeh genre. For it followsthat all dietion in them is inserted beautifully, or badly, or indiffer­ently.

The term 'tEAO~ marks both the conceptual similarity with Aristotleand the wide gap that separates the anonymous theorist from hirn.Asmis37) has claimed that Philodemus here talks about Crates andher argument is fairly plausible. If her identification is valid, thedifference between Aristotle and Crates, already apparent fromPhilodemus' remarks in book 5, becomes irreconcilable.

As mentioned above, the Stoics were in general less radicalthan Crates, although he shared common ground with them. Theyattributed importance to both diction and thought. Some Stoicsseem to have been closer to the Aristotelian tradition than others.Panaetius for instance observed that the beauty of artworks con­sists in the arrangement of their parts and the spectator's percep­tion of this arrangement38), probably echoeing Aristotle's Poet.1450b34-37 and Met. 1078a36. Nevertheless, the overall impres­sion from the comparison between Aristotle and the Stoics is oneof divergent orientations. As mentioned above, the concept of

36) Cf. Asmis (above, n.30) 156-158.37) Asmis (above, n.30) 167-169.38) See Cie. De off. 1.14 and 98; cf. D.H. Dem. 48 and Arist. Quint. 1.4. See

also the eomments of R. Philippson, Das Sittliehsehöne bei Panaetius, Philologus85 (1930) 383-384 and De Laey (above, n. 1) 246-247.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 271

imitation, for instance, played a role in Stoic literary theory butboth the object of 1-t(l-tllOL~ and its execution are unrelated to theirAristotelian counterparts. The Stoics thought that poetry imitateslife and should be truthful to it. The broadness, and the conse­quent lack of precision, of this requirement contrasts with Aristot­le's painstaking delimitation of the notion of 1-t(l-tllO~~. Besides, ac­cording to the Stoics the imitation could be symbolic, not literap9),and thus the road to allegorical interpretation opened wide. This isanother un-Aristotelian staple of Stoic literary criticism, less origi­nal but arguably the most influential part of the Stoic theory40)since it had a far wider impact on later theorists, especially Chris­tians, through Philo. Allegory was for the Stoics a way of circum­venting the most problematic stumbling block in their discussionsof the poetry of the past. Poetry undeniably contained much thatfell far short of the strict moral standards espoused by the school.Allegory provided a respectable, although inevitably often im­plausible, answer to many of these problems. Homer was theprime candidate for allegorical interpretations. He was highly es­teemed by the Stoics and even by the Epicureans to judge fromPhilodemus' treatise On the Good King According to Homer41 ).

Aristotle of course also considered Homer a model poet but it ischaracteristic of his approach that he searches for and pinpoints aconcrete reason why Homer excelled among the poets of the past.Several reasons could easily be named in support of Homer'ssuperiority, especially that Homer was the teacher of all Greeks ina variety of different arts, above all the art of war42). Homer's

39) Cf. G. Kennedy, Hellenistic Literary and Philosophical Scholarship, in:G. Kennedy (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. I (Cambridge1989) 212.

40) For a detailed collection of ancient evidence see M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa,vol. 11 (Göttingen 41970) 55. On Stoic allegory see Pohlenz 97, De Lacy (above,n.1) 257-58, F.Buffiere, Les mythes d' Homere et la pensee grecque (Paris 1956)137-54, Pfeiffer (above, n. 5) 237-46 and D. Dawson, A1legorical Readers and Cul­tural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley 1992). P. Steinmetz, AllegorischeDeutung und allegorische Dichtung in der alten Stoa, RhM 129 (1986) 18-30, andA. A. Long, Stoic Readings of Homer, in: Lamberton and Keaney (above, n.5)41-66, have correctly challenged and qualified the scholarly communis opinio ac­cording to which the Stoics considered Homer an allegorist in the strong sense andpursued wild allegorical paths that distorted the poet's meaning. This sweepingview of Stoic interpretation originated in ancient polemical criticism of the Stoa.The Stoics approached Homer with c1early Stoic lenses but their interpretation wasnot unrefined, reproachable or radically different from that of many ancient andmodern readers.

41) On Homer and Philodemus see Asmis (1991) (above, n.2).42) He was even credited with scientific insights. Crates and Posidonius,

272 Poulheria Kyriakou

poetry was intricate and pleasant and people turned to his epics forexamples of ethical behavior43). Aristotle, though, mentions onlyHomer's poetical superiority which consists in his having beenable to construct a ~'Üeos out of the vast, non-unified material ofthe Trojan war saga. For Aristotle Homer is never a reveredteacher but merely an excellent poet for a very specific reason.

It is instructive to investigate how Aristotle and the Stoicsaddressed Homer's 'mistakes'. Aristotle considered only mistakespertaining to the art of poetry as compromising the poetic com­position. The poet's ignorance of other non-poetic matters is noton a par with amistake in the construction of the ~'Üeos. Optimallymistakes should be avoided altogether but since this is not alwayspossible poets should be judged only on the premisses of their ownart. Occasionally it is even possible that some mistakes or improb­abilities promote the final cause of the art: in such cases they are tobe not only tolerated but also praised (Poet. 1460b13-32). As men­tioned above, the Stoics showed particular affection for Homerand even considered hirn as a sort of proto-Stoic. It was indeed notuncommon for Hellenistic philosophical schools to vie for theauthority of Homer in an effort to enhance their prestige. Thecontradictory accounts of Homer's supposed philosophical affilia­tions were appropriately ridiculed by Seneca44). Although theStoics are included among the targets of Seneca's attack, when itcame to judging Homer the Stoics could not but make hirn a badpoet. According to the Stoic system a poem could be called 'good'only if both its content and form were unobjectionably good.Even if only one element fell short of this strict ideal, it sufficed to

whose views along with those of others like Hipparchus have been preserved byStrabo, energetically defended the Homeric 'doctrines' against attacks like Eratos­thenes' on which see H. Berger, Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes(Leipzig 1880) 19 ff.; cf. D. R. Dicks, The Geographical Fragments of Hipparchus(London 1960) 38. On Strabo see D. M. Schenkeveld, Strabo on Homer,Mnemosyne 29 (1976) 59-64. For Crates' defense of Homer see fr. 30, 34a and 35aMette; cf. Porter (1992) (above, n. 30) 85-111. For Posidonius see fr. 49.300 ff., 216,222, 277a and 280-281 Edelstein-Kidd; cf. the extensive discussion in G. Rudberg,Forschungen zu Poseidonios (Uppsala 1918) 127ff., I. Heinemann, Poseidonios'metaphysische Schriften, vol. 11 (Breslau 1921) 54ff. and W. Theiler, Posidonius.Die Fragmente, vol. 11 (Berlin 1982) 6ff. For a more sober view of Homer's (andAratus') 'scientific' contributions see Posidonius fr. 48a Edelstein-Kidd andI. Kidd, Posidonius, vol. 11. The Commentary (Cambridge 1988) 214-216.

43) For references see De Lacy (above, n. 1) 264 n. 136-139.44) Ep. 88.5; cf. SVF 11 1077 and see H. Noblot, Seneque. Lettres 11 Lucilius

3 (Paris 1979) 159-60 and Long (above, n.40) 47.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 273

catapult the whole thing into S10ic anathema45). A poem could beeither good, bad or intermediate. Absolutely good can only bepoems composed by an absolutely good person, i.e. a wise per­son46), a creature notoriously rare and virtually non-existent. De­spite this problem, the S10ics apparently believed that 'good poem'was not a contradiction in terms, as Philodemus contends in hiscriticism, although admittedly such poems were very rare. Poemswhich were good in some respects but bad in others, or even bad inonly one other, were considered intermediate if they lacked bad­ness in the form of factual or moral falsehoods. In strict Stoicterms Homer was no wise man because in his poems one candetect several such lapses and find many phantastic and improb­able elements that compromise the truth of the narrative. AI­though his composition was laudable, he could at best be calledintermediate if not absolutely bad. The S10ics had to go out oftheir way to safeguard Homer from attacks of a Platonic, Heracli­tean or even strict S10ic type. To exonerate Homer from charges ofinconsistency Zeno postulated that the poet employed two princi­pIes, truth and opinion (SVF I 274 and 456)47). Aristo adopted alenient attitude and expressed willingness to "forgive" Homer bycalling hirn 'good' only in a loose sense (Philod. De Poem. 5.17.32and 18.5,14). Obviously, for the S10ics Homer's excellence couldbarely save hirn from philosophical contempt. It is also probablynot accidental that, unlike Aristotle, the S10ics seem 10 have fa­vored shorter poems like hymns. Such poetical forms could pre­sent philosophical truths more directly and exhibit the stylisticmerits consistently advocated by the S1Oics. The famous Hymn toZeus by Cleanthes for instance was totally devoid of mythologicalelements and could very well be used for didactic purposes48).

Much more interesting and original than allegory or the Stoicviews on Homer was the S10ic concept of epaVtaOLa and its role inthe artistic process49). As a literary term epaVtaoLa appears in later

45) See Asmis (above, n.1) 164ff. and Mangoni (above, n.27) 250ff. withfunher bibliography.

46) SVF II 393 and III 505, 516 and 525.47) Cf. Buffiere (above, n.40) 205.48) On the hymn see K. Sier, Zum Zeushymnos des Kleanthes, in: P. Stein­

metz (ed.), Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom(Stuttgart 1990) 93-108 with a collection of previous bibliography in n. 2.

49) On q>uV'tuo(u see the discussion of RusselJ (above, n.5) 108-110 andK. Eden, Poetic and Legal Fiction in the Aristotelian Tradition (Princeton 1986)107-111; cf. M.Fuhrmann, Die Dichtungstheorie der Antike (Darmstadt 1992)177.

18 Rhein. Mus. I. Philol. 140/3-4

274 Poulheria Kyriakou

sources50): it is the ability to present things, especially dramatic,pathetic or calamitous events, so strikingly and vividly that theaudience cannot help experiencing the desired emotion, like angeror pity. This eHect is most eHiciently achieved when the poets ororators themselves feel strong empathy with the misfortunes theydepict, as if they were actual witnesses to, or participants in, theevents they describe. The notion of vivid representation goes backto Aristotle's Rhetoric (3.11) but the appropriation of the term<pUVta(Jeu in the realm of literary criticism and artistic creation51 )was certainly influenced by the use of the term in Aristotle's Dean. 427b29 H. for the ability to form images. Artists do not simplyreproduce things they have already seen or experienced, as a stricttheory of imitation would have it, but they are able to createtotally or partially new things by drawing on their ability for<puvw(Jeu, combining old and inventing new elements52). AlthoughI do not think that Aristotle would object to such a theory orconsider it incompatible with his own theory of !-le!-lTJ<JL<; since he iswilling to accept tragedies with imaginary plots, it is true that henowhere elaborates on the creatively imaginative aspect of thepoet's work. Later theory developed what is at best latent in hiswork.

On the whole, moralism probably constitutes the most seri­ous dividing line between Aristotle and the Stoics. The latter firm­ly believed that poetry should contribute to the moral edificationof the audience, especially the young, who could use it as a pre­paratory stage for their introduction to philosophy53). Hence,poetry should present the same truths as philosophical prose. Fan-

50) Philostr. Vit. Ap. 6.19, Quint. Inst. 6.2.25 H., 8.3.88, 10.7.15 and [Lon­ginus] 15. It is surely not a coincidence that all these sources have connections withrhetoric because rhetorical theory used cpaV'tao(a extensively as a means of per­suading the audience; see E. Birmelin, Die kunsttheoretischen Gedanken in Philo­strats ApolIonios, Philologus 88 (1933) 149-80 and 392-414, W. Bühler, Beiträgezur Erklärung der Schrift vom Erhabenen (Göttingen 1964) 64, Schmidt (above,n. 13) 62 and D. A. RusselI, Greek Criticism of the Empire, in: Kennedy (above,n.39) 313-14.

51) Historians also employed the term; see D.A. RusselI, "Longinus". Onthe Sublime (Oxford 1962) on [Longinus] 15.1.

52) For an example of this process see Cic. De Inv. 2.1-3: Zeuxis created aportrait of Helen by combining the charms of five Crotonian beauties.

53) Philod. De Poem. 5.14.6-24, 29.15-19, PHerc. 403 fr. 3.8-15 and4.12-16. See F. Sbordone, [<PLAoöi]l.lOlJ IlfQL IloLT]!-tcl'twv] Tractatus Tres (Napies1976) 254-55 and Asmis (above, n. 1) 193. Forfurther evidence see De Lacy (above,n.1) 251 n. 51, 52 and 269-71; cf. C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry, vol. II (Cam­bridge 1971) 352ff. and Russell (above, n. 5) 42 and 85.

Aristotle's Poeties and Stoic Literary Theory 275

tastic or 'immoral' stories were rejected as !!'Ü8m (i.e. fabulae) thatcompromised the philosophical integrity of apoern. Philosophersand sages had no use for poetry and rejected its pleasure as indeedevery kind of pleasure which they considered an irrational move­ment of the soul (SVF III 391.20-21). They should not draw ordi­nary vulgar pleasure from poetry but experience XUQU54), an agree­able emotion that accompanies the benefit they reap from theirinteraction with philosophical poetry.

Cleanthes held the most peculiar views on poetry's impactand prestige, even among his fellow Stoics. In contrast to almostevery other thinker in antiquity, including Aristotle, he thoughtthat the rhythmical patterns, musical accompaniment and exalteddiction of poetry suited philosophical concepts about the nature ofthe divine and the cosmos much more than dry, pedantic prose.Like a trumpet that diffuses the air blown into it amplifying thesound, poetry with its elevated precision brought out seriousthemes much more strikingly than the freer prose55). Vividness, ofcourse, was an important notion in ancient theories of style andliterary criticism but the philosophical twist Cleanthes gave it waspeculiar and indeed unique with hirn. In the Poetics Aristotle men­tions vividness passingly and considers it a characteristic of dietion(Poet. 1455a21-29), a natural classification for an attribute thatenjoyed prominence in the field of rhetoric and was counted as oneof the virtues of style. Vividness, however, is a secondary elementin the construction of the !!'Ü8o<;, relevant primarily in the contextof a theatrical performance: by visualizing accurately the happen­ings on stage the poet is able to present a clear picture, guaranteedto capture the attention of the audience and to avoid possible

54) For the contrast between the two see SVF III 431.16-18 and 434-435; cf.A. Bonhöffer, Epiktet und die Stoa (Stuttgart 1890) 293-298 and Asmis (above,n.1) 192-93.

55) See the eloquent account of Seneca: Nam, ut dieebat Cleanthes, quemad­modum spiritus noster elariorem sonum reddit, eum illum tuba per longi eanalisangustias traetum patentiore novissime exitu effudit, sie sensus nostros elarioresearminis arta neeessitas efficit. Eadem neglegentius audiuntur minusque pereutiunt,quamdiu soluta oratione dieuntur; ubi aeeessere numeri at egregium sensum adstrin­xere eerti pedes, eadem illa sententia velut laeerto exeussiore torquetur (Ep.108.10).Cf. Philod. De Mus. 4.28.1-35, esp. 28-35, where the Epicurean endorses the Aris­totelian position (Poet. 1460b2-5, 1462all-14) in his response to Cleanthes: farfrom presenting the thought more powerfully, the glamour and loudness of metre,music and lofty diction distract the audience from the proper appreciation of thepoem's thought. See further E. Asmis, An Epicurean Survey of Poetic Theories(Philodemus, On Poems 5, cols. 26-36), CQ 42 (1992) 40HOl.

276 Poulheria Kyriakou

damaging slips56). Cleanthes' conception of prose and poetry isreminiscent of Aristotle's comparison of history and poetry wherethe former is presented as encumbered by the inclusion of manyincidental and inconsequential events that do not foIlow accordingto probability or necessity. The intervention of tragic !!ii8oC; turnsthese disparate events into a work of art more akin to philosophythan history iso The metre, rhythm and diction of Cleanthes'philosophical poetry apparently had a similar effect: they turned alooser prose-account into a didactic philosophical masterpiece aptto present the truths of Stoicism, both scientific and moral. Againthe emphasis on music and rhythm as weIl as the moralist slant ofCleanthes' views demarcate them clearly from Aristotle's concernsin the Poetics.

It is very hard to find anything analogous to moral instruc­tion in the Poetics. The question of tragedy's, and poetry's ingeneral, impact on the morality of the audience is never broachedthere. It apparently was never high on Aristotle's list of prioritiesand it is obvious that he never considered poetry a means of moralinstruction57). The old dilemma whether poetry is supposed toplease or teach is addressed by Aristotle in a characteristicaIlyidiosyncratic way: to please not in an intuitive way but throughthe construction of a rational complex artefact, the !!ii8oc;.Nevertheless, since tragedy at least deals with the actions of per­sonal agents, ethics is inevitably drawn into the picture, if not somuch by Aristotle hirnself, definitely by several modern inter­preters. Actions of course have a moral basis since they are deter­mined by and betray the agent's rational choice (n:QOULQEaLC;). The~8oc; of tragedy should reveal the rational choice of the characters(Poet. 1450b8-9, 1454a17-19). Besides, Aristotle explicitly refersto tragic characters as "greater than ourselves" (Poet. 1454b8-9)and to early poets as having a moral predisposition for their genre(Poet. 1448b24). Thus it is undeniable that moral parameters playsome role in the outlining of the profile of tragedy but it should bestressed that the distinctly secondary role ethics plays in the Po­etics has nothing to do with the Stoic insistence on morality andinstruction through poetry. Aristotle apparently rejected bothPlato's views on the worthlessness of poetry and the view Plato

56) On vividness see G. Zanker, Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,RhM 124 (1981) 297-311. For the views of later literary critics and orators on thesubject see Eden (above, n.49) 85-111, esp.88 and 108-111, with a collection ofevidence and bibliography.

57) See Russell (above, n. 5) 91-93.

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 277

attacked, the use of poems as educational compendia whose credi­bility is guaranteed by the prestige of their authors.

From the above it has emerged clearly that the differencesbetween Aristotle and the Stoic school are considerable. To anextent, the discrepancy is understandable since both the Aristote­lian and the Hellenistic literary theories developed as an offshootof larger philosophical systems which were ex hypothesi funda­mentally different. It is characteristic for the limited influence ofthe Poetics that, as far as can be gleaned from the extant evidence,even the Peripatetics seem to have diverged from Aristotle. Againit is impossible to observe or postulate a total split if only becauseit is hard to find any area of study that Aristotle left completelyout of his horizon. But it is undeniable that second and thirdgeneration Peripatetics focused significantly more on biographicalinquiries and even anecdotological material than Aristotle everdidS8). They wrote extensivelyon poetry, poets and literary criti­cism but they seem to have favored an approach that can be calledif not un-Aristotelian at least largely foreign to the Poetics. Amongthe Peripatetics the scholar Neoptolemus of Parium is the mostinteresting, if very difficult to assess, caseS9). The first and majorstumbling block is Neoptolemus' philosophical affiliation: al­though often called a Peripatetic he is not securely identified assuch. At any rate, from Porphyrio comes the tantalizing piece ofinformation that Horace in his Ars Poetica adapted the most salienttheses of Neoptolemus' literary theories (Ad Hor. A.P. p. 162.6Holder). The only extant account of these theories is found inPhilodemus' On Poems (S.13.32ff.) and it is unknown whether itcovers Porphyrio's "salient" points or not. Philodemus had appar­ently presented Neoptolemus' theories in some detail earlier in thetreatise and the extant text is as usual obscure because it consists inlittle more than the author's expressions of indignation at views heconsiders unfounded and almost lunatic. Neoptolemus is reportedto have divided the art of poetry into three parts or kinds, poem,poetry and poet60). The first two are easily understandable and

58) For a comprehensive account of Peripatetic contributions see A. Podlec­ki, The Peripatetics as Literary Critics, Phoenix 23 (1969) 114-37.

59) On Neoptolemus' theories see Mangoni (above, n. 27) 53-61 and 221 ff.with a survey of previous bibliography; cf. Fuhrmann (above, n.49) 145-53.

60) For different conjectures about Neoptolemus' kinds see A. Ardizzoni,TIoLll!!U. Ricerche sulla teoria dei linguaggio poetico nell' antichita (Bari 1953)9-30, C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry, vol. I (Cambridge 1963) 58, Greenberg

278 Poulheria Kyriakou

indeed remllllscent of Posidonius' definition, although Philo­demus found fault with them too. The third is the most puzzlingand elicited Philodemus' heaviest attack: how can the poet, theagent, be considered part of the art he possesses ? The question hasnot been satisfactorily answered yet. At any rate, whether a fulleraccount of Neoptolemus' theory would provide the sorely neededmissing links or he simply used a loose terminological apparatus,the theory seems to be unrelated to the Poetics. Attempts to associ­ate Neoptolemus' views with Aristotle's Rhetoric are not particu­larly convincing and have not met with much critical approval. IfNeoptolemus were a Peripatetic, his difference from Aristotlewould gain additional weight, especially since he seems to havebeen an advocate of the didactic use of poetry (De Poem.5.16.22-28).

Already Theophrastus apparently moved away from Aris­totle. The question of his debt to Aristotle will never be settledwith any degree of certainty given the paucity of his survivingwork. It is particularly unfortunate that only one very brief defini­tion of tragedy attributed to him is found in a very late source, thegrammarian Diomedes (1 p. 487.11-12 K). Two other definitions,of comedy (1 p. 488.4-5 K) and epic (1 p. 484.1-2 K), as well as adubious one of mime (1 p. 491.15-16 K), are transmitted anonym­ously but there is strong possibility that they also originated inTheophrastus' work. Diogenes Laertius (5.47-48) testifies that hehad written a Poetics as well as a Rhetoric, now lost. Fragments ofhis On Style survive - he was himself considered a very giftedstylist by later critics61 ). The primary contributions attributed tohim concern the characters of style, i.e. its division into grand,middle and plain62), and the virtues of style, correctness or 'Hel-

(above, n.l) 276-84, G. B. Walsh, Philodemus on the Terminology of Neoptole­mus, Mnemosyne 40 (1987) 59 ff. and E. Asmis, Neoptolemus and the Classifiea­tion of Poetry, CP 87 (1992) 208-209, 219-220, 230-231.

61) See Cie. Aead. 1.33, Brut. 121, Orat. 62 and espeeially D.L. 5.38 whoreports the outrageous aneedote that Aristotle ehanged his student's original nameTyrtamus to Theophrastus beeause of the man's divine dietion.

62) Ir has been debated whether Theophrastus aetually proposed sueh atheory or he basieally espoused the Aristotelian doetrine of stylistie mean; seeG. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greeee (Prineeton 1963) 278, D. M. Sehen­keveld, Studies in Demetrius On Style (Amsterdam 1964) 66 ff., D.Innes, Theo­phrastus and the Theory of Style, Rutgers University Studies 2 (1985) 251-67.P. Chiron, Demetrios. Du Style (Paris 1993) lii-lv, suggests that, although Theo­phrastus advoeated only one good style, later authors like Demetrius may havedeteeted in his work aversion of the later standard tripartition (Demetrius himselfdoes not know this theory: see Chiron xxx-xxxi).

Aristotle's Poetics and Stoic Literary Theory 279

lenisrn', clarity, appropriateness and ornamentation63). (Later theStoics added brevity to this canon)64). He exerted substantial influ­ence on later rhetorical and stylistic theories, although the sameholds for other Peripatetics to065). As I have already indicated,opinions about Theophrastus' indebtedness to Aristotle have var­ied. The modern consensus leans towards a middle path of sorts:Theophrastus does not disagree with Aristotle and he essentiallyexpanded on Aristotle's theses with many original insights of hisown like his emphasis on audience-oriented vs. fact-orientedspeech66).

If decisions about Theophrastus' theory of style, of whichsomething has survived, prove difficult and tentative, it is immedi­ately apparent that Theophrastus' poetics is beyond reasonableelucidation. As mentioned above, the only surviving evidence, thedefinitions of genres, are so brief that they are not particularlyhelpful. The first one runs: "Tragedy is a JtEQL<JtUOlC; of heroicfortune". Dosi67), who, following Rostagni, made the most am­bitious attempt to reconstruct Theophrastean poetics, translatesJtEQL01:aOlC; as "vicenda" (event) and specifies that in tragedy's casethis has to be a catastrophic event. Comedy is said to be "the safeJtEQLoxi} of private affairs" and epic is the JtEQLOXi} of "divine, heroieand human affairs". Even if JtEQL01:aOlC; is not the rhetorical ter­minus technicus that Dosi proposes and simply means 'change' inthe sense akin to Aristotle's JtEQLJtlhnu, the difference from thePoetics is striking. On the evidence of these definitions as well aswhat little can be found in other later sources Dosi reconstructs asystem that, she claims, exerted a vast influence on alllater criti­cism, from Hellenistic through Byzantine times. Although sheinevitably attributes great significance to every scrap of availableevidence and makes her case with great confidence, her argument

63) Cic. Orat. 79. Again, Aristotle recognized only one virtue and Theo­phrastus broke it down into four. Düring (above, n. 9) 180 considered this distinc­tion as merely formal. Others saw a more substantial contribution on Theophras­ws' part; see Pohlenz (above, n. 25) 107. See also Milanese (above, n. 33) 21-23 withan overview of previous bibliography.

64) See D.L. 7.59 and Innes (above, n.62) 256.65) See J. Stroux, De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi (Leipzig 1912) 54 ff. and

Innes (above, n.62) 251.66) See e.g. G.M.A. Grube, Theophrastus as a Literary Critic, TAPA 83

(1952) 178 and M. Lossau, Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese(Wiesbaden 1964) 47ff. .

67) A. Dosi, Sulle trace della poetica di Teofrasto, Rend. Ist. Lombardo 94(1960) 599--672.

280 Poulheria Kyriakou

is not implausible, even if ultimately improvable. Her basic thesisis that Theophrastus moved away from the Aristotelian positionthat emphasized an intellectual approach to poetry and concen­trated on drama which could be studied in terms of probabilityand necessity. The insistence on the construction of a plausible~'Üeo~ entailed the neglect of all other elements. Theophrastus setout to redress what he purportedly saw as an imbalance68). Heproclaimed that poetry does not necessarily have to reproducereality or be plausible: aiming at pleasure it could include, besidereal events (LGtoQ(a), fictitious but plausible accounts (JtA.aG~a) andtotally fantastic elements (~'Üeo~). While history and philosophydeal with facts, rhetoric and poetry are fictions which charm andpersuade the audience. Since the connection with probability andfactuality was severed, Theophrastus necessarily had to proclaimdiction the determining factor in the creation and appreciation ofpoetry. Words and eloquence are poetry's only means of pleasingand persuading the audience and should be chosen and worked outcarefully.

If this reconstruction is correct, it suggests that Theophrastuscan be viewed more as the precursor of Hellenistic and more speci­fically Stoic critics than the disciple of Aristode, although ofcourse his views must have been formulated as areaction to Aris­tode's. With the emphasis on diction he foreshadows later de­velopments. Groping for answers to the problem of poetry'suniqueness and its position in a larger philosophical and moralframework, ancient critics were led to views that proclaimed dic­tion, or some related formal element like euphony, the quintes­sence of poetry. More specifically, Posidonius' definition of poet­ry as "imitation of things divine and human" shows similarity withTheophrastus' definitions but that may be accidental. Dosi alsosuggests that Neoptolemus' division of poetry, poem and poetcould go back to Theophrastus but that is even more speculative.What seems reasonably beyond doubt is that already Theophras­tus most probably followed a distincdy un-Aristotelian path in hispoetics. This fact poignandy underlines the isolation of Aristode'sviews on poetry.

Rethymno (Crete) Poulheria Kyriakou

68) See the discussion of Koster (above, n. 10) 85-92.